Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 02-13-1985CITY OF PLYMOUTH PLANNIM, COMISS40H HINUTES FEBRUARY 131, ;1985 The regular meeting of the Plymouth Planning commission Was called to order at 1*0 P.M* PRESENT-* Chairman Stelqerwald,: Comml slon rs WireMagnus, tul.berg, Pluf .a and auba ABSENT*- Acne STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Coordinator, Sara MoConn on un ty Development Director Blair Tr ere City Engineer Sher c Goldberg Community.Development Secretary Grace 11yineman MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Magnus, seconded by Commissloaer pauba to approve the Minutes of January 23, 1965 as VOTE. 5 Ayes. Commissioner Stulberg abstained,, MOTION HIT S - JAMARY carried. 232 1985 PUBLICHETNG$ Chairman Steic erwald' introduced the request by Dirlain Dever- D DEVELOPMENT op ent, and Mr. Denni. Dirlam, petitioner. He requested REVISED RPUb PRELIM- M— thatthat oordinator McCo-in _'review the January 11, 1955 Staff INARY DEAN AND PLAT Report., Chairman ; eiq,- ild asked for questions'roes the Commission. Commissioner Plufka inquired about the size o the open space in the northeast : corner; and, arca of I the gree lots which are to be relocated. Coordinator McConn answered that there t5 a difference of 2110 of an acres and Mr. Dirlam. stated that the northwest corner would include 1,77 acres in Outlot B, and 1.9 ages in lots. Chairman Stelgerw ld opened the Public Hearing. a)mrmls loner Pauba inquired about the landscaping in ttse open area Mr ; Dirlam stated they were keeping the land- scaping as before} with basically the same number of plant- ings with some rearrangement,. Commissioner Pauba inquired if the Commission would be seeing this landscape plan. Co- ordinator McConn stated that the landscape ;plan would not be reviewed by tame ComntssiOn at the final plat stage unless so directed. Commissioner Pauba stated he had no real, problems with the landscaping. Page 35 Planning Commisstoo tllnutes February 13, 1985 Chairman Steigerwald introduced the item concerning amend- ORKMANCE meats to the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance. He explained that AWMMENTS there are six draft amendments to he discussed,, screening of rooftop equipment, trash and r disposal standards dor the residential zoalno district t elevators- equivalent yards/ foru'esI hedges., and wails; temporary outdoor promo- tional b vaI merchandising i ct :viti s, and, residential area identification signage. Reading of the February 6, 1985 staff report was waived. Commissioner Wire inquired about -,0.3r panels ;and whether they would he required to be screened, and hog.. Coordinator ReConn answered that the language was directed toward active" me hanical equipment, and not toward passive solar equipment; it is possible cert -vin types of ;polar e uipaent might be screened from view, h,,,- ot in a gay to interfere Nvith sunlight, Chai.rmaa Steigerwald confirmed this requirement would he for net -,onstru tion only. Chairman Steiqerwald opened the Pub - lie Hearing. Don Jordan,: Trammell: Crow 8300 Norman Center Dr. $ Bloomington, MR.,, stated that Wt. is representing Carlson Companies, Vantage Company, and Pr4,Alential, Dev lopment Co. Restated that, trough the amead ent looks benign, he is concerned that it goes much deeper. Ue stated that his firm plans carefully by making certainh. t the colon selection for this equipment will blend pita the building and the horizt a; Mr. Jordan had pictures to Ahow the Commission. He stated` that no matter how you would try to meet the require- ments as stated ,in the draft amendment, it would turn out to be a "Picket fence" or "dog ous-,11 approach, and would not be an attractive or aesthetic addition to the building. He stated ` that each site is different; as an example$, in the Plymouth f3 jsiness Center} there are four different eleva- tions which makes t diffi.Aalt to screen all directions* also, the developer will not know potential tenants and hav- Ing to screen any additional rooftop equipment could mean substantial' Improvements to the building, that will add to the cost, and will be a maintenance °prohlema. Mr. Jordan st ied that: .0osthetics and visual soreerOnq can be accoka- pushed by dieting; the paint being a camouflage which will not '4eAraot from other building features. He stated' that in regard to noise, this equipment is often insulated when installed. Chairm n Stel erwald explained the draft reainance amendment regarding rreening' was requested by Council because of impacts on residential neighborhoad& such by commercial and industrial uses ivith nod Sy and. unser =tined rooftop equipment. Page 24 Pi.anni.n ('ommissioa Minutes February 1985 Commissioner Solberg stated his, reason fV' r his secord on the Motion for approval W"5 that the trade in open space i a trade of passive* rccrea t)nal area for passive recreation- al ec eati. n- al area; there was no trade of developed area for passive area; and. 0ere will be as .much open space as Wacs shOl n originally. Commissioner Wire inquired about the pond area. Enginecx Goldbergstated that the drainage mu t be maintaineO on their property, ;or ._hey Mould need an, easement to pond on property north of them, they were unabll- ` to acquire this e:e test Commissioner Stulberg inquired if the ponding was discussed with the or.'g in l PUD review. Coordinator McConn Mated that the same policy is in effect now as when the proposal was originally r vle e zi, Mr. Harhul a stated that he did not remember the requirements being brought to their ,Attention. Engineer Goldberg off, red that p-rhaps Mr. iviar uia had not dealt with this aspect ofs she .poi.i 0y prOviodS,ly Colmuissioner Wire commented Leat he concurs with Com ' psi n er' Plufka, and he prefers the o en areas be more centrally located. He feels the remotely located area is a problem topographically and: will: not be convenient to all the residents. Commissioner Pldfka stated that chancing the access to the open space creates a problem making the area accessible to the residents of they :second phase; that there would be an , ad s problem theouth ' t and, the use of the cul-de- access imposes,' traffic. on those residents. Roll Call, VOTE on the MOTION to approve the Revised xPUD VOTE -w NOTION FAILS i"rclim nary Plan and Plat.. Commissioners Pauba and tulborg, Afire. Commissioners 14agnusj, r1re, Pluf alt Chairman ei.ger ald May. MOTION fails. MOTION by ; Commissioner Plufka, seconded by Commissioner tol t4agnus to defer recommendation on this item, with direction CUvw"'I QATION toL restore a portion 01 the common open space to the central area of the development, and to look for a better solutior for access to the common open space for all residents of the development;. Chairman Steigerwald inquired of fir. Dirlam If he would pre- fer to go to the City Coinvtl without Planning ;o mdsslOn recommendation, or come back to the C nni.ssion with the changes as recommended# Mr. Dirlam stated pie 'preff rred to return to the Commission. ill Call VOTE. 6 Ayes. MOTION carr4 ed. VOTE - MOTION . Noe planrlinq Commission Minutes February 1985 Chairman Stelgerivald introduced the T e onlng , Conditional ST - `DD Use Permit and Residential planned Unit Deyelopment Prelim- CONSTRUCTION "t nary Plan and Plat 'o Harstad- `odd Construction Company, OT-NDllJOKA and asked for review of thq February 49. 1985 staff report. US PERMIT AND RPL PRMIMINARY PLAN AND Chairman Steigerwalld, Introduced Mit'. Kennoth Briggs, repre- PLAT (81+100) senting Harstad-Todd Construction, and fir. David Putnam, Merila ar,d Associates, Inc,, consultant. Mr. Briggs discussed the 'initial Concept pian and the revis- ions made on their plans in response to direotion from the g lot sues forPlanningCommissionandCityCouncilretardn( lets on the perimeter of the development; increased lot width for lots on 3uneau Cane; and, redesign of common open space, all of which has been accoitpl shed. Commissioner pluf a asked for a review of the common/open areas surd Mr., Briggs presented a graphic ANAth this information. Chairman St igerwald opened the public Rearing. Chairman tp;gerwald introduced Martha t la.ahe n, 1 41st Avenue lorth who passed on making comment at this time. Leo C.asheen, 14555 41st Avenue North, stated his concern is tete number of hones: per acre 8 xth.xn this development. ent. He stated he moved to Plymouth in 3uly and had In ed at many hones in many areas He was impressed with the planning b ?nq done in Plymouth. fie does not see that this proposal fits into the neighborhood. He would like the planning Commission to keep the lot sizes in proportion to the entire area» Chairman Steilerivald inquired about the square foot ge of Mr. Clasheen`s lot. Mr. Clasheen stated he has. a 30,500 sq. ft. lots and that this development zhou)d maintein consistency. Cha .rman ('teigerwald explained that during the preliminary stages of ., ev ew for this development, It was requested that there be larder .lots on tho periphery of the development so that most of the larger lots mrill be closest to the existing neighborhoods. Mr. Glasheen reiterated that he has not seen this type of density in, the area:. Chairman Stelgerwald explained that this proposal is not an unusual development, and that there are many residential Planned gnat Developments inPlymouth. Page 4 planning Commission Minutes eruar ly Mr. Briggs stated that they worked to meet the Ordinance provisions, and that they would be building i homes on these lots. Coordinator McConn reviewed the lots sizes for existing lot$ on Juneau Lane, and explained that the area has yet to be served ivitl sewer service so that large 3 acre lots are orison Chairman Stei erwald explained the planning process for this development that the developer has responded to dlreWon from the Planning Commission and City Council; and, has done hAt the City asked to be done. He further explained that the Planned Unit Development allows a developer, density bonus points for comMon area and open space developed for the use of residents within the development. Mr. Glasheen was concerned about access to County Road 9 and the added traffic. Chairman 5tei: erwald concurred with the traffic problems on County Road 9, and explained that the traffic controls are under the authority of Hennepin County. He inquired of staff„ as to plans for the i w=terse r Engineer Coldber stated the Cn} ty' has no immediate plans for upgrading the intersection of Juneau Lane. Commissioner Plufka inquired about the classification of 3uneau Lane; Coordinator McConn confirmed that Juneau Lane is a minor collector. Richard Grimsrud, 4385 Kingsv ew Lane, asked to pass comment at this time. Lyle 3oyee, 4130 Juneau Lane, stated h :` It the developer had made many improvements, but that he still has two con - erns; the 'dangerous access to County Road , and, the lot sizes. He stated that the lots in the ar- a are 25, to 30l 00 sq. ft., and his lot is 3,,7 acres on uncau Lane. He feels the requested increase for lot size on Juneau Lane is only a token change, and there are still: top many small lots with this redesign. He stated he moved to Plymouth because of the oo ntr -like atmosphere and Rant .he liar or lot sizes maintained in this area. Commissioner plufka commented that if the propertywere developed within R -1A zoning standards, the minimum lot size would be 18,500 sq. ft., he would he concerned in requiring OtOOO sq. ft. lots in a PUD. Larry Knoblachf. 43Z5 Juneau Lane, passed on making any comments at this O e. Page 27 Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 1985 Tom Montgomery 1, 4305 Kingsview lane, ;Mated the development does not meet the PUD attributes, and ;he can't see how the Planning Commission could not follow those requirements, He. requested that the Commission discuss the attributes cin :-b„ - one$ and explain how this development meets the or teria, Chairman tei erg ald explained that the attributes are general guidelines, and there is ' not an expectation for a development td meet al,l of them. The expectation for each area as it develops is different. Mr. Montgomery expressed his concern that this sums. arbitrary,", and: if all attributes sire not: met, why would the development be approved. Commissioner Pauba sated that the City can he better served with a Planned Unit Development`, where open space and re root onal amenities are offered to; the residents. fir. Montgomery id not t-oncur, ,and feelstoo many homes are proposed In one development. halrmantelgerwal.d requested Mr. Montqomery review the Ptd attributes. Coordinator McConn stated that in the R -1A Zoning District the allowable density is , two units per acre. Commissioner Plufka stated it was his opinion ths number of dwelling units would he consideji ably less in the R -1A Zoning District due to r ight-of-way, easements,; and development constraints. Chairman St iger Bald called a 10 minute Recess. RECESS Chairman Steigerwald resumed the Public Hearing, Commissioner Praia commented that obviously the statement made regarding the allowable density of Z units, per 'acre in the RAA District as times any_development plan would have to provide streets and utl.l tties Hawver, he, f els ae ro-.;lit tel y a0l dwelling, unit: would be expected under zoning. Chairman. Stelgerwald (,mmented that a standard plat would he wi thou, planned open s!,ace and common area. Mrs Montgomery stated hls estimate is 185 to 190 units considering: the amount of un seable land; and, granting waivers on lot size and lot coverage will make a: crowded development. Mr. Triggs dlscur,,-A Ile., "coverage and the addition of decks and pored mss,} ;;iD,* xi Steigerwald inquired if fir. Briggs had shared the 'Kingsview Heights development booklet with neighbors- and, offered the booklet .to Mr. Hontgo:-iiery for his information and review* i page 2 Pl nnin i Commission Minutes February 'la, 1985 Jim Hart t'1 :icksburq Lane North, stated that in look ng t the plan he is concerned about the lend he owns. He inquired about frontage, and how he will be able to access his land.. He stted It looked to him that he would be los- Ing the ability to develop alono the roadway. Coordinator icConn stated that Mr.", would have frontage,, but it would be reduced. She stated that staff could meet with Mr., Hart and review how his land could develop.. Mr. Hart, was concerned float he is losing,the value of his prop- erty. r - er . Engineer.Goldberg stated that Juneau Lane will curve at a right angle to 46th Avenue North,.and agreed with Co- ordinator n- ordinat r NoConh that this, heeds to be looked at In more detail? as it is ohvious that total access cannot be taken from Mr. Hart. lr. Briggs stated he has no problem with extending the roaa- way and Increasing, the curve, and would net cut off ` access o= fir. Hart's property. Chairman Steigerwald inquired about the size of fir, Hart's property, fir. Hart stated he owns approximately acres. Chairman Stelgerw ld reiterated that.Mr* Hart should talk with Coordinator McConn and Engineer Goldberg regarding his, property. Bob Roscoe, 4260 Kingsvi w Lane, stated that he lives dir- ectly adjacent to the proposed development and inquired about the status of the Planned Unit Development. Chairman St igerwald and Coordinator McConn explained that the Con- cept Plan has been approved) and the Rezoning, C'onditio.rNal Use Permit, and Preliminary plan and slat are being con- sidered tonight. ter, Roscoe stated he would be more comfor- table If this were acing to be a done ntional plat; and,, he arrived at a computation for approximately 180 dwelling units being appropriate for this development. He suggested that homes along Kin sview Lane and 43rd Avenue forth have a setback of 50 ft.. Chairman Stelgerwald,inquired if those who had gassed making comment wished to speak at this time; they Mated that their tedquestionshadbeenacdressea. Mr Tom Montgomery commenL he felt that this development only meets one of the attri- butes for a PUD Linda Roscoe, 4260 Kingaview Lane, stated her concern is with the high density; and, the fact that lymouth's image is changing with emphasis on high density and :Low income housing. She is also concerned about the increased traffic, and the fact there will not be schools and playgrounds in sufficient numf) r to keep up with high density development. She does not want the "ruralfeeling" of the neighborhood to be lost. Page, Planning Commission Minutes February 10 1985 Marian Schmidt, 1152() Park Drive, Rogers, MN, stated they owned hand in Plym, outh, part of which they k"a e sold. They still own small piece of property north Glacier Lane, and inquired if the City P14AS to` ill it in, or if it will remain a, pond, Chairman Steigerwald stat J the City would not propose anything for this property'. Mr. Briggs' stated that it was, their feeling that the land Is unuseable, and would not accommodate a house. Chairman Steigerwald inquired I Ms. Schmidt had intended to sell this land with the property she sold to the east. his. Schmidt stated these were two separate parcels. Chairman Steiqvrwald stated that there is no way the City can consider oo,,o)<< , and the parcel Is landlocked. He inquired if his. _.. has covenants for access, lis. ichmi'dt answered no, f"It airman tel erwald stated that perhaps. Mr. Briggs could contact els. Schmidt regarding this land. car. Briggs stated tie would consider possible purchase and inclusion of the land and would discuss this with els. Schmidt. Chairman tel erwald closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Plufka Inquired ,Lf the Commission would oonsider the RPUD Preliminary Plan and Plat for PUS} status first. Chairman tel.ger al.d answered affirmatively. MOTION by Commissioner Stulberq seconded b Commissioner PII° Pauba to recommend approval of the Residential Planned Unit Development Preliminary Clan and Mat subject to the co,n- ditions as stated in the draft Resolution., Commis i.oner Plufka stated that the development plan as revised is a better plan, but he is still concerned'that it does not meet the PUD attributes. He is also concerned about the "passive" nature of the open space and inquired if a more '"active"" use is planned. f lr. Briggs stated that they Proposed to provide trails, benches and picric tables, and will bring in more detailed plans -dor these areas, once they receive input from the City, because of the public nature of the open -space. Coordinator NeConn asked for clarif ,cati a on Mr. Briggs' use of :the word "public", in conjunction with the aped areas for this development, as they are ody for the use of the residents in the development. qtr. Brigs clarified that he did not mean "public" in the sense of City parks, but that it would be for the residents of this development. Commissioner Wire stated that the size of this area makes It a candidate for PUD status, but the plan does not meet the criterla for a PUD. It appears that it substantial redesign could be needed to meet those requirements* flexibility given to a PUD. Commissioner Magnus lnqud;red if the Commii, cion should defer recommendation for redesign. pages l planning Commission Minutes ebruary 13, 1985 Commissioner Magnus stated his concern with the .layout for the open sp4Ve1 that there is not; enough useable land included in the open :space; and, it Is too spread out. Connissioncr Stulberg stated that he believes the pet honer hds listened to the direction given hilm by the Commission and Council, and, has responded to that direction. He stands by his Motion for approval. Commissioner Haanus stated his -, concern about buffering and transition al. na ithe eastern. border. Commissioner Stulberg comen ed th4Z the same concern could be expressed If there were lot sizes of 18,500 sq. ft,,,?scuss on enss ed about futtire development west of Juneau Lane. Commissioner Pauba concurs with Commissioner Stub=erg that the petitioner responded to the direction 9111ven, and, the plan is better than what could he p ;, v id d with a conven- tional plat. Commissioner Pl.uf a stated he agrees the petitioner has made progress) but there are problems with two, of the five cri- teria and the development ones not meet the spirit of the PUD attributes. Roll Call. VOTE. Commissioners Ragnust Wire, pluf a, and VOTE `ION TO Chat", an Steigerwald Nay. Commissioners 1 tul.berq and Rauba, APPROVIE - MOTION Aye. 140TION failed. FAILED MGTION by Commissioner Wire, seconded by Commissioner pl of a NOTION TO DENY to recommend dental of the Rezoning, Conditional: Use;Permit, and Residential Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and plat for arstad-Todd Construction Company. Coordinator McConn expl aired that the Planning Commission had recommended approval for the Concept filar for this development and, that the Council granted approval with direction for certain changes to the plan. Changes were made and have been considered tonight. She noted the cojimients made regarding the PUD attributes, er,d that the Motion; to deny must contain the reasons for that. denial.. Commissioner Wire stated his Notion was a Positive statement for dental; that he was xnitia.tly concerned about tr ns- ltilon; and, Is _,trot satisfied with lot size and lot lva dth. He does not believe that the developer has made use of the flexibility given to a PUD. Commissioner Magnus lnqud;red if the Commii, cion should defer recommendation for redesign. Page 31 planning Commisslon Minutes rebtuary 1 1985 C'oa!,., 1oaer Stulberg stated that the playa approved c()neop ual, l.y as, a PUD. 4r Briggs to ed that they have responded to the direction given thein by the Cl *¢ that they havu exoended time and nog ey to this end, and he does not understand why theCom- mlosion is now saying it is not a PUD. Chairman Steigerwald l.nqul.red if they want the item sent forward with the recommendation for denial. or 1,P they wo0d accept the recommendation for deferral for redesign. Mr. Briggs_ stated thf y want to move forward for City Council consideratzoG.:' rurther discussion eAsued regarding the PUD attributes. Co- ordinator MeConn; explained that desa,gn direction is approp- riate, at the preliminary pltvl/plat stage, and gives the developer the --)pportunity to respond: to that, direction. Mr. Briggs stated that he is confused about the Commission's recommendation for approval of tho. PUD at the COAOePt std(le.,, and now they find it is not a PUD. He stated they would accept Commission direction for 0-tpreliminary plan and plat. Chairman Stelgerwald )>onflrm d that Mr., Briggs was not under the impression this would be an au omatio approval of the Preliminary Placa and Plat. Roll Call Vote. Commissioners Stulberg, Pluf at Pa bay and VOTE ON MOTION TO Chairman Stel erwald Nay. Commissioner,--* Wire and Magnus, MOTION FAILS, Aye. MOTION Falls* MOTION by Commissioner Stulbergt seconded by Comm ssion r NOTION TO APPROVE Pauba to recommend approval of the development as a C{lIh 31 T141, USE Residential. Planned- Unit Development for Harstad-Todd PERMIT Construction Compafay sub e;,t to the conditions as stated In the draft Resolution., Poll Call. VOTE. 4 Ayes. Commissionors lire and Pluf a VOTE - MOTION C1lRRIE Nay, MOTION carried seconded by CommissionerIT1CdayCommisinnertulberglsmaa NOTION TO APPROVE Pauba to recommend appy~oval for the Rezoning and RPUD Pre- REZONING ANS RPW Ibuinary Plan and Plat subject to the conditions as drafted PRELIKKARY PLAN/ I,through 20f adding Condition No. 21 that Juneau lane ,and. FLAT 46th Avenue North address the right of access to the proper- ty owned by Mr. JIM Hart of 4725 Vitksburg Lane North. MOTION to AMEND tlu'l 1,t IN MOTION by 'Commissioner Magnus,, seconded by Commissioner Wire to add Condition No. 22 that Lot 21. Stock 14t and Lot 11 Block 18 require 50,ft. setbacks for taa:ss.can ands Conti, Ion doe 3 that the lot size and width on the east side of 3uneau Lane .be in proportion with those lots can: the west side o uneau sane, per l -1A standards. Page pianning Commission Minutes ebruary 1, 1985 Mr. Clasheen inquired about the recommendations and stated concern that it appears the Planning Commissionssion s de xgn n the 0 .at. Chail,man "telgerwa .d explained that the Commis- sion is giving direction to the, developer that includes their recommendations on redesign, and these recommendations are forwarded to the City Council. if they concur, that ap- proval <ai`o s the developer to proceed in preparing anp- 1 cation for the foal Plat stage of the development. He confirmed that those interested in attending the City Coun- cil meetingfor .this Item -:an calf the City to confirm the City Council meeting date, and time. Further discussion ensued regarding the location of common open space. VOTE on the AMENDMENT. 5 Ayes. Commissioner Stulberg Nay. VolF_ - AH9DWNT MOTION carried. MOTION CARRIED MOTION ,by Commissioner Wlre seconded by Commissioner Pluf a NOTION TO AMU13 to AMEND the MAIN MOTION by addingCondition No. .2.4, recioir- In those: lots within Block 11 and 12, which abut residences to the south, to meet the R-1A lot size and lot width standards. Mir. Briggs Mated that Lots 1 through 4 exceed the P-1A re- quirements. so does the Commission want these reduced'?' Com- missioner Wire stated haat his recommendationendation is that all these lots meet the R-1A standards. Further discussion ensued. Commissioner Plufka withdrew his MOTKON FAILS FOR LACK second of the MOTION to AMEND. The NOTION failed for lack OF SECOND of second. MOTIONby Commissioner Pluf a, seconded ; by Comaatissi.oner TiQt T THE Magnus to AMEND the MAIN M TION by adding Condition No. 24 M MOTI 4 to require the , petitioner to submit a plan outlining the cases for the common open space, such as whether it will be passive or active use- type of recreational equipment and their location, andj that it ,should be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation' Advisory Board (PRAC) .. Pall Call T . Ayes. ;€CTlC 1 carried, VOTE - A LMWNT TO THE MAIN XOTION MOTION C-A&RIED Poll. tall VOTE an the 14AIN MOTION as I11ICE AMENDED 5 CITE - MAIN MOTION Ayes.* Commissioner Wire Nay, MOTTON carried.. AS TWICEAWNDED IEDMOTIONCARRIED Commissioner Wire .stated his reason for voting a a Ast the Motion is that he .,foes not t,,elle to there is adequate transi- tion shown on this plan. Chairman 5tez erwald called a 5,minute Recess.. RECESS Further discussion ensued regarding the recreational amenities. ci e Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 1985 Chairman Steigerwald Introduced the Amendment to the N4END VNT TO THE Thoroughfare Guide Plan Element of the Comprehensive Pian to THOROWNFARE GUIDE delete a portion of West Medicine Lake Drive from the Func-- PLAN ELEWNT ti nal;Classification of, major collector roadway on the Thoroughfare Guide Plass Map. Reading of the February 41 1 55 sta f + valved :ha,irman Steigerwald opened the Public Hearing, as there was no one to speak on this item, the Public Hearing was closed. NOTION TOAPPROVE MOTION by Commissioner Wire$ seconded by Commissioner Stulberg to recommend approval of the Amendment to the Thoroughfare Guide Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan as stated In the Planning Staff Report dated February;, 1955. VOTE. 6 Ayes, MOTION carried. VOTE —MOTION C RI Chairman Stel erwald introduced the next item, and requested VERN REYNOLDS areview ofme February 41 1985 staff report by, ooruin for Ti TI CO. i%Conn.RPUD CWT PLAN Chairman Steigerwald introduced Rod Halvorson, representing Vern Reynolds Construction Company. Mr. Halvorson explained the Concept plan, stating that the property consist of rol- ling terrain and that a large open area is planned for tf e center of the site. He noted the areas of steep grades. Chairman Steigerwald inquired about the diffference In eleva- tions. fir.: Halvorson explained there is some slope. in :the rear yards.. Chairman Stenger ald inquired if some of the steep areas can be flattened and leveled. for. Halvorson stated that his landscape architect is working on this now. Chairman Stelgerwald commented that he recommends they re- duce or flatten steep grades as much as possible to attain useable space for the residents. Commissioner Plufka stated he concurs with Chairman Steiger- wald, and is also concerned about the useability of the planned open ,space.' He Stated, it appears that the access would not be good to the centrad open space for residents on the eastern edge of the property. fir,. Halvorson explained that this has to do with the grades between t o buildings, Commissioner Plufka stated there should be a designated area for residents to acess the common area without having to walk on driveways, and there should be direct access: to the pond. Further discussion ensued regarding the recreational amenities. Page 34 Planning Gcmmissl,)n Minutes- February inuts" e ruary 13-,11985 Commissioner Stulberg stated that specific direction should be given for the recreational. Open space. Commissioner Wire concurred, and recommended the developer prepare a Usting of proposed landscaping,, equipment. and amenities for the Covinission's review. Mr. Vern Reynolds stated that is working with the land- scape planner on plans to flatten the area for a playfleld; trees and shrubs; grills and tables for the picnic area; and$ terracing will be dont; in this area* He, advised this Is ; not ;a final plans and a trail pion has not been prepared as yet. However, the acceis can be changed to address the commissionsconcerns. Chairman Stelgerwald opened the Public Hearing. Jack Gassn r, 5265 Pineview Lane, tepresentint Mr. Jerome Be ln, inquired about the construction schedule for North- west Boulevard. EngineerGoldberg responded that the Public Hearing has been held, and the construction from 55th Avenue tc Pin view` ,ane is deferred until. 1986. Coordinator HeConn explained the phasing of the project wAll be consistent with utility availability. Engineer Goldberg expained that there are no plans for the road construction for ' that part of the development outaide the seer district. Ruth Rdsendahl, 5205 Pintview Lane, stated her questions were also regarding, road construction, and she is concerned about traffic on Piqeview Lane. Engineer Goldberg responded to the phasing of the road con true ori. Ms,. Rcsendahl st jtcd she is also concerned about sewer avallablity for all the units rop,,ed. Coordinator NeConn explained that :the development complit: i with the Staged Growth Plan, and Phase Is limited to app;oximately 20 acres for development, the balance of this property can not develop until after 1990. ehairm n. St i erivald closed tete Public Hea in MOTION by Commissioner Plug a, seconded by Commissioner NOTION To, APPROVE Padba to recommend approval of the Residential Planted Unit Development Concept Flan for Vern Reynolds -Construction Company subject to the nine conditions o ` the draft Reso- lution e o- ld ion ` with the addition of Condition` No. 10 to require a detailed plan for the recreational open space with the sub- mittal of the preliminary plan and plat; and Condition No. 11 to provide access to the common open area frog the eastern edge of the development to the central open area, and north/south to the pond. Roll Gall, VOTE. Ayes. MOTION carried. VOTE MOTION CARRIED PLANNING COMMISSION RE COMMENDATION FEBRUARY 131, 198 APPROVING P L 11` I11ARY PLAT AND VARTANCE FOR ROBERT GERSBACH FOR MEDICINE LAVESHORE ADDITION ( 84107 ) WHEREAS, Robert Gersbach :has requested approvalof a Preliminary Plat and Variance' for Mediellne Lakeshore Addition :)r single 'Family residential Iota on 2.08 acres at 540 Wet Medicine Lake drive; arxd, WH R A j, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called Public Heari.nq and recommends approval) NOW, TH REF ORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVrD BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE`CITY OF ;PLYMOUTH t NINOESOTA, that it should and hereby does aporove the Preliminary Plat and Variance for Robert Gersbach for Medicine Lakeshore Addition for 3 singly: family residential lots located at 2540 West Medicine; Lak 'Drive, subject to the following onditi a s. 1. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the prop r..y at the owner's expense. Provisions for a 30 -ft. wide trail outlot per Comprehensive Park Plan, ds verified by the Parks and Engineering Dep rtrrent , with submittal of detailed plans as to construction of the trail perCity standards. 4. ' Payment of park dedication Foes-Jin-lieli of dt.dication with appropriate credits In an amount determined according to verified acreage and paving costs ono ac- cording to the Dedivation Policy in effect at thy., time of f1iino the Final Plat with Hennepin Couqty, Compliance with Policy Resolution No. '79-80 regarding minimum floor elevations for new structures in subdivisions, adjacent to, or containing any open stores eater drainage facility. No Building Permits: 4shal.l: be issued until the Final Plat is filed and recorded with Hennepin County. 7.. Approved variances are. ot 1: a,1 lot width (75 ft. vs 110 'Ft..) Lot :` a.) Lot width (65 ft. vs 110 ft.) Lot 3: a.) Lot width (65 ft:. vs 110 ft.) b..) Lot size (18,141 sq. ft. 'vs 18,300 sq. ft.) Nc, yard setback variances are granted or implied for any new structures or auditions. 9. The existing structure on proposed Lot shall be removed prior to filing of the final plat. Page. planninq Commission 14inutes i ehr ory 13. 19S5 Mr. Jordan stated that the compressor equlpr;en,Z, and cooling hers'usect in some locations are much different than standax*d" rooftop units used on- typioal developments such as theirs. Chairman tdigerwald stated; that the language still, gives the developer flexibility in design and mater'i.als fir. otdan stated that th swordin) "durable materials" connotes a fence or structure: Chdrmn Stoigerwald stated that he agrees that: paintinq the equipment may iolve the aesthetic* concern of Secreening, Chairman Steigerwald commented that the requirement as it fted by staff is necessarily. ' vague" so the l anti ~ °i ca emission can be flexible; in thein recommendations. Mr4 3ordan. stated that he is uncomfortable with the 1, in that it seems to defi-'Itoly meati fencing or structur}-' a Mr Lawrence Mare y,, 2635 Medicine Ridge Rind, Chairman ft.r the Plymouth Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals, stated that the wordinq "constructed durable materials which are" could be deleted, leaping only "Screening hall bo aesthetically compatible Director Tremere statod be has no ub eotlon'with this direc- tion; howev r, in some oases constructive screening is need- ed, In the case where "noise't is a problem additional sere-- ening is needed to diminish the sounds from equipment,, and there should be a uniform standard in the Ordinance if it is to apply in all oases of similar classes. Pewrhaps differ- I ent classes or situations should he distinguished. bwai.ssioner Wire stated he understands the developer's don- ern regardinq additional cost, but #tie City needs to ad- dress the areas where commerciallindustrial adjoins iresiden- ti;al. neighborhoods. He said he was not concerned with Industrial. park loeeti.ons wh h $gad ria abutm t or inter- facing with non -industrial uses. Mr. Carlos Hodge, Prudential Development Company. stated the City concern is valid in the case of noise; however; aesthetics is . separate issue and the oonoern is not $o valid.. He atated here should he flexibility in the Ordin- ance, based: on demonstratel, need for screening. ommi.s i.onor Wire inquired about industry stand 4 ds on noise, bevels. fir. 3ordan stated that the standard rooftop equi - meiit,, &, ending vapor the site of the tenant area, can be the same size as home units. Commissioner Wire ocwen-d that the condenser& and chillers generate'certain deolb l t= and there should be some ray to fudge if screening should be required. igen 37 Manning Commission Minutes February 13, 1965 Director Tremere stated that this may be hard to deteriallne and probable cannot be , tid ed until the equi^114 is Instal- led* If the equipment is shown with the Site purr 01ica- t1on, it could' e evaluated "up front's. Commi'ssi,oner Wire inquired if the City could refer to National standards as is dune with luting. Mr. Ceorge Mel en$ Honeywell Inc, stated they have dealt with hdise levels, and if there is no other noise to screen out the sounds from the equipment (such as ambient traffic n ise)t it could impact adjacent properties. However, the sounds produced by these units often cannot be picked up on a noise meter. Chairman Steigerwald stated that frequency and pitch could be of concern. Commissioner Wire stated his concern regardinq noise; that is heard by those beyond the property lines of the facility producing the noise.,Direc- tor Tremere stated that the Ordinancence specifi.call.y spears of glare and vibration, not noise, regarding boundaires. equ- 1 tion of noise is by reference to State regulations. ow— ever, the City Council is concerned that if there is a prob- lem from r<oofttp equipment that would produce disturbing sound ' in residential neighborhoods, the developer must ad- dress this problem, gust as is done with glare from site Cheirman Steicterwald closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Chairman Steigerwald, seconded by Commissioner MOTION TO D pltzf a to _defer action on the draft Ordinance language on A RECOMHE-MATION endment No. ° p, screening of rooftop equipment, with direc- ON AMENDMENT NO.. 1 than for further consideration by staff as follows: COMmi $- si.oner Wire stated he would life information on estate stan- dards (such as from the Pollution Control Agency), regarding noise levels. Chairman Stei erwald stated that the develop- er shoe whether the rooftop equipment can blend with ` ;:he building by the use of paint. Commissioner Plufka concur- red, and stated that when a building' is well planned, the requirement for a special structure for screening would be a last resort, but the assurance that this planning has been done is an appropriate cons Ideration for site plan reviews. It was agreed that the locational factor, such as indus- triallcommerciai abutting residential: should be cited, Com- mi.ssiGner Wire stated that painti.nq and maintaining the equipment arid/or screening should be addressed. Chairman Steigerwald inquired if ' the manufacturers address this issue in 'their design `of the equipment. fir. Hodge stated that certain utn is arc, energy efficient, built for quiet operation, and present ,a low aesthetic profile. Chairman Stei.gerwald requested staff to coordinate with those developer representatives who were present, and for them to communzcatd with other Development Council members when the additional information and revised draft are done.. P1,lan ing Commission Minutes February 13, 1985 Rall Call VOTE. 6 Ayes. NOTION carried,. VOTE -TO DEFER TION CARR . Chairman Steigerwald -introduced Amendment No. Z relating to trash and refuse disposalstandards for Residence Districts, and opened the Pub"lis Hearing, Aa there was no one present to speak on this item, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION by Commissioner tire, seconded by Chairman MOTION TO .APPPOV telgerwal.d' to recommend approval of Ame dsnent No. NO. relating to trash and refuse disposal standards in the Residence Districts. Roll Call Nota. 6 Ayes.. MOTION carried. VOTE MOTION CANTED Chairman Steigerwald introduced Amendment No. 3 relating t elevators, and opened the Public Hearing. As there vas no one present to speak on ,this item, the Public- Hearing was closed. MOTION by Commissioner Plufka, .seconded by Commi3sioner TION TO APPROVE tulberg to recommend approval of Amendment No. 3 requiring AWNDMENT NO. 3 elevators in multi -residential buildings. Roll Call. Vote* 6 Ayes. NOTION carried.. V`. TF- - MOTION CARRIED Chairman Steigerwald introduced Amendment No, 4 relating to Equivalent Yards ences, Hedges, and Walls and opened the Public Hearing. tr. Larry Maro s y, Board of Zoning, described the requests being considered by the Hoard for those lots that are not addressed by the Ordinance, ie., corner lots where dual access is allowed. He said the Hoard ,and Commlsslon had also d scu!:`;ed building setbacks In corner scat cases, and he noted this amendment Moes not cover that. Director Tremere concurred, and he discusscd the neer definition of, "Equivalent Yard", and stated that the matter of yard dimensions would be discussec by the Commission w th the issue of building coverage. Commissioner Plu°ka stated that regarding corner lot and through lot dual access, a requirement cannot be created for the myriad of possibilities that could o our, and that is why there is a Hoard of ,Zoning, i.e., these are relatively unique circumstances. Chairman Steigerwald closed the Pub1io Hearing. Page 39, Planning Commission t4inutes February 13, 1985 OTl0N tulborc , seconded baa Commissioner TIO'4 APPROVE lu a to approve Amendment No. 4 regarding aquiverntAIME G. i ds Fences, hedges, and walls. OAyes. ` oarr'l ed VOT` . , ' Chairman iteiqerwald iodu . Amendment No. 5, relating to temporary outdoor promotional and merchandising aet:ivities, and opened the Public Hearing. As there was no one to speak on this item, the Public Hearing w&.-, closed MOTION , by Commissioner Magnus, seconded by Commiss 1,1, iter NOTION TO APPROVE t*ulberg to; recommend tapproval of Amendment No rel}.ting AHENOWNT N0. to temporary outdoor promotional and merchandising activities. OTE. 6 .dye 3. MO110N carried.. VOTE, _ NOTION CARRIED Chairman Stelgerwald'introduced Amendment No. 6 relating to residential area Identification signs, providing the minimum setback for, these signs found at the entrances to residen- tial developments, and o0ened the Public faring* As there was no one to weak on this Item, the Public., Hearing was closed. MOITION, by Commissioner Paijbaj seconded by Commissioner NOT3ON TO APPROVE Plufka to recommend approval of Amendment No. 6 relatinq to AW-WHENT NO., residential area Identification signs. VOTE: 6 Ayes. MOTION carried VOTE - 140TTON CAmjED NEW BUSINESS Chairman Steigerwald introduced the Honeywell, Inc* MatUr 1 ; LLQ INC. Flag Amendment,._. Site Plan and Variance for an approximate AMENOWNT TO TE 61000 sq, ft. addition, with request for a varianoe, to allow, K.AN, SITE PLAN, AND a 50 ft* setback to the zoning lire between the B -i and FRD VARIANCE A-151) Districts; reading of the January 31, 1985 staff.report was waived MOTION by Commissioner Wire,,seconded by Commissioner Magnus NOTION TO APPROVE to reoomend 4p roval forHoneywell,- Inc., easter PlanAmend- ment, Site _Flan and Variance subject to the conditions as stated In the draft Resolution. The 0ommission discussed the zoning lines and their concern f Honeywell should divest themselves of any land. They e;onfir ted the lnt nt is to maintain this land as a buffer to adjacent properties* Chairman Steigerivald inquired about Pl 0 mnnip Cit missy n Minutes February 13 ,t 19i5 future planning beyond the addit`lon of the 'clean room. Mr. Mellen -,-tkated it is difficilt to address future plans yard state-of-the-art 'n logic _ changes so raps oVOTEcarried. yON y 4MOTIONOT : Chairman i e,IqA introd"t ed thy. application by Carlson CARLSON PROPERTIES Properties. of the February 1, 19,1 Staff o*.t FINAL PLA" AND wasYiven VARA 80 Chairman gerwa introduced r. le Kennedy, representing Carlson,Properties« lir. Kennedy stated they do not c-tgree with the ctaff report where it states, under ptaragraph 51, that a shared driveway should be utilized# Engineer Goldberq stated that it is common practice to eliminate the number of drives on a collector street. Chairman Stelqerwald asked Mr. Kennedy the reason th.ey do not agree with this re :cmmendataon. Mr. Kennedy stated that it will create problems for the owners of the lotss pith the shared drive; he feels a shared drive is not nece$sarY here. Coordinator McGoon relteratedi. that the City wants to encourage shared drives alone minor collector roadways Commissioner Wire inquired if it wouldn't be easier to have the shared drive:, rather than removing It. tir. Kennod:y stated they are not concerned about taking out the drive, they feel It will make marketing she property muga easier. MOTION y Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Chairman OTXV TO APPROVE tei erwald to recommend approval of anal, Mat for Carlson Center Fifth Addition sut)ject to the conditions In the draft llesclution, and deletion of Item No, -B of the e'ngineer's Memorandum. OTE. 6 ayes. MOTION carried.. VOTMOTION CARRIED S SS- OLU BUSINESS - hairman ei erwald introduced the item, readinq of theChairman ROBEPT CERS13ACI1 February 11 1985 staff report was waived. PRELLMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCES 01+107) Chairman Steigerwald introduced fir, Robert Cersbach, who explained 'the revisions made in response to the Commission direction at the meeting held January 9. 1985. TIM. Commission discussed the use, of existing dwellings and retaininc trees on the property. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FFBRUARY 15, 1955 APPROVING,l IDEM `l 1. N NIT EV L"' NEN P11FLl llllARy LAN/PLAT AND ONDITIONAL USE lel t llT ` .AR TAD-TODD CONSTRUCTION Y" FOR VIFW LIGHT PU X5-1) WHEREAS,, Harstad-Todd construction Company has requested approvdltor a Residential bi nned Unit Development r 1, mina y Plan k:, Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit for 1kingsview heights for creation of 22-4 single family residential lots l.00at d northwest of County Road 9 and Juneau Lane.' and northeastof 44th Avenue and Juneau Lane; and, DDHER AS the planning Conjii,s ion has reviewed the request. a.t a duly called Public Hedring and recommends approval.; ViV THER FOR t BE IT .R Y RESOLVED THE ITYli C-L OF THE TTY OF PLYMOUT141- MINNESOTAt that it should and hereby does approve the Residential Planned krait Development Preltiminary, laa/Plat and Conditional Use Permit for l a stad-Todd Construction Compare= for Kin s,vie ° Heights located northwest f County Road 9 and Juneau Lane and northeast of 44th -Avenue and Juneau Lane, subject to the follow ng. oundi,tionsZ 1. Compll Ance with the City ,Engineer's Memorandum. 2. Removal of all dead or dying trees from the property, at the owner°s expense. 3. Maximum density shall be `. units per acre ; for the lana T. or above the established high eater elevation per the adopted City Stomalator Drainage Playa as verified by ` the City Engineer. Two density bonus pointy are assigned for size of project', and one point is assigned for affirmative design. The final number of units approved is 224. d Building Permits shall h issued oa t P . Contract has good awarded for sewer and water. 5. Payment of, Park dedication fees-in-lieu of d'-,a iotl in aceordpnce with the Dedication Poli y in effect at the Time of fili.no the 'nal Peat. 6. Street names shall comply with the City Street Naming System, Cotl1pliance with polity Resolution No. 5_ g regarding in r-,.., floor levation for new structures in suhdi isiofts a(i cont toy or co.atainiwi any open 'storm water drainage aolllty- 8. Rezoning shall be finalized a i th filing of the Final Plat. Development shall 1)f: consistent with the Turtle Lake Area Environmental Assessment{ 10, o Building Permits shall be issued until the Final_ Plat is filed and recorded with. Hennepin County. Page two RPUD PreliminaryPlan/Plat ll. Yard setbacks shall be 30 fit. front yard,,, except for those lots cllonq COU11ty Road 9 which shall be 50 ft, front Yard- 10 ft. side yard and 42 -*5 ft, rear yard. V, Access shall be limited to internal public reads and restricted from: County, Road 9 and Fernbrook Lane. 13. Transitional screening and b rming shall be provided along: County Road 9 and F'ernbrook Lane with final plans to be provided on the final grading plan. 14. Appropriate legal documents regarding Homeowner Association documents, covenants aro restrictions as approved by theCity Attorney, shall be filed with the Final Plat. 15. Sign construction d tails shall be provided with the Final. Plan/Plat applica- tion. pplica- tion. There shall be a property covenant for monument sign maintenance. over the entire subdivision, as approved by the City Attorney; such covenants to be filed prior to issuance of a Sign permit. Appropriate easements for the location o the si liis on the property shall be filed prior to issuance of a Sign Permit. 16. Construction details of development plans for the comolon open, area shall be pro- vided on the final grading plan. 7. All existing structures, except those' on Lot 4, Block ? and Lot 11 Black 10 shall be removed with the initial development. 18. Last coverage by !'.rdcturds shall be 20 percent) except that 22, lots may have up to 34percent coverage by structures, 19. A, model unit may be `constructed on Lot' 14, block 8 in accordance with Section 71 Subdivision F° of the Zoning >Ordinance. The Final plan/plat application shall identify location and construction plans for access and parking associated to the use of a model unit. i. Any existing wells shall he filled and capper; in accordance with ;Mate Health Department regulations* 21. Developmentopment Flans shall address the right of access to the property owned b Mr. Jim Hart from Juneau lane and 46th Avenue North 22* A requirement for 50 ft. setbacks for, Lot Z. Block 14, and Lot 11 Block 18 for transition Lot size and lot width on the east side of Juneau Lane shall be in proportion with those lots on the West side of ldnea4- Lane, per the F -1A zoning standards. Submission of a plan outlining the uses for the common open 'space such as, pas- sive or active use; type of recreational eotlipmon= and their `Location- and, that this plan shall be reviewed by alio Parks and Recreation. Advisory Board (FRAC). RECOfTMENDATIONS FOR` 'E6nU RY 13, 1985 APPROVING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PEAK FOR REYNOLDS, CONSTRUCTION, UPN (S l2 WHEREAS, Reynolds Construction Company has requested approval. of a Residential lant ned Unit Development Concept Plan for the development of 5Z guadrimi.nium units and: 0 multi -family units on approximately 76.8 acres located east of 1-494 and north of the Sob Eine Railroad Tracks in Sections and 10; and, WHEREAS, the Kanning Commission has reviewed the request at a duly called Public Informational, Hearing and has recommended a provall OWt THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY TUE CITY COUNCIL OF TAE CITY UE PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that LYM UT IiNESUT,at it should and `hereby flees approve the Residential Planned Unit ilevel opment Concept Plan for R--ynolds Construction Company for a development to be known as Bass Lake Terraces consisting of 57 guadrimini.um units and 380 multi -fes; ily units on; approximately 78.LS acres located edst of I-494 and north of the Soo' Line Railroad Tracks, subject to the following conditions; I.. Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandum. Staging of the development shall be In accordance with utility availability a approved by the City Engineer, and the Staged Growth Plan. Maximum density shall be 6. units per acre for the land at or above the estab- lished high wikter elevation ger the adopted City Storm Water Drainage .Phan as verified by the City Engineer. The final number of units shall' be determined with the Prel i.mi.nary Plan and Plat review. The preliminary plat/plan application shall include explanation of requested yard setbacks, lot coverage, removal of existing structures, and screening/buf- J q along I-494 and Northwest Boulevard 5. Draft restrictive covenants for the private open areas shall: be submitted with prel ii. i nary plat/plan application.. 4. The preliminary plat/plan application shall address the development and use of the private open areas. 7* No private; drive access shall be permitted to Northwest Boulevard*, all private, drives shall, be provided` by internal public streets. S The preliminary plan/plat application shah not be submitted until the proposed Thoroughfare Guide Plan Amendment is finalized. Dark dedication requirements shall be cash fees -in -lieu of land dedication. 10. Submission of a detailed plan for the recreational open space with the Prelim- inary Plan and Flat. 11 rrovi.sion for access to the common open area from the eastern edge of the devel opmegt to the central open, area, and north/south trail to the pond. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEBRUARY 13t 1985 F 0,5 ING MASTER LAN At IU1 " T, SITE PLAU,, AND VARIANCE APPLICATIONSO HONEYWELL, INC. A-151)' WHEREAS, Honeywell, Inc. has requested approval of a easter Plan Amendment, Site, Plan, and Variance for an approximate 6yOOG ft. addition to their facility located a 001 State Highway ; and, WHEREAS, N planning Commission has reviewed said request and recommends approval; GW, THEREIrOREy BE IT dFRE Y RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY or PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTAt that. it should and hereby does approve the request for Honeywell,, Inc. for a Haster Plan Amendments Site Plan, and Variance for an approximate 6,000 f* addition their facility located at 12001 State Highway 55, subject to the folijowinq conditions 1. . Compliance with City Engineer's Memorandum Isubmission of required - financial guarantee and Site Pc- formance Agreement for completkon of site improvements. 3. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approv- als per Ordinance provisions,, and i accordance vilth the Master Plan staff dated 3anuar v 11 . Approved Variances Include*- a 50 ft. setback to the zoning line between -1 and FRU Districts, rather than the required 75 ft. setback considering tete property z intended to remain undeveloped and will serve as a buffer to already developed areas. Submittal of a complete landscape plan prior to issuance of Building Permute.. RECOMIENDATIONS FOR' ' i Y 1 11985 SErTING CONDITIONS TO BE MrT PRIOR TO FILING OF AND RELATEDTO FIRAL PLAN` FOR CARLSON ER FIFTH ADDITION FOR CARLSON PROPERTIES (80039) WHEREAS, ttie City Council ttas approved the, Final Plat and Variances` or Carlson Center Fifth Addition as requested by Carlson P opertiesl ; NOTYt T E CP , BE lT E Elay RESOLVED C COUNCIL C CITE Cl" P YHO T , MINNESOTA, that It should and hereby does approve the following to be met, prior t recording of, and related to >aid plat; 14 Compliance with the City Engineer's Memorandumt with deletion of ItemNo. of the Engineer's Memorandum. The Ordinance rezininq the Property shall be published upon e i4en e that the Final Plate has been filed and eerd u' ev th Hennepin County, 3. Payment of pare dedication fees -in -lieu of dedication in a"ordance with City Policy in effect at the time of filling I - e Final Plat. No yard setback variances are granit d orImplied; and shall be in accordance with the R -1A standards. Approved Variances arez lot areas of 18,x29 sq. ft. for Lot I and Ut847, sq ft for Lot 3, rather than 18,500 sq,. ft. and lot widths of 302 ft. for Lm, I and 104 ft. for Lot I rather than 110 ft. of required utility and drainage easements as approved by the CityA. Submittal _clu y Engineer prior to filing the Final Plat. 7. No Building Persalts to be Issued until the Final Play: is filed and recorded with Hennepin County.